Let's build a drag race 8BA engine

frnkeore said:
Food for though.....

HP costs money but HP per CI, can cost a lot more. HP per CI, is what wins races in class racing.

Now a days, you can easily build a 304 to as much as a 315 CI FH, using the 4.25 cranks. But, because of the little 1.312 ID intake port, each time you go up, in CI, you gain total HP but, loose HP per CI. Even with a blower, you can't get much threw that port. I would bet a Built, N/A 302 SBF will put out more than a blown FH of the same CI.

You gain some on C/R as you increase CI but, you loose breathing ability. For the street, CI helps and blowers help but, you'll never win a class race that way.

The old saying "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?" will always apply, especially in class racing.
Click to expand...

Not sure you could even make the comparison between a SBF and a normally aspirated flathead. Two different animals.
 
Tim Ayers said:
How are you talking to? Why are you being so negative?
Click to expand...

Sorry my messages are being put in the wrong place. I was responding to someone on here who goes by Pete, andI was calling him out about his ridiculous comments about his 14 to 1 compression Flathead making 352 c.i. There is a whole new generation out there getting into Flatheads, and I hate to see them getting useless and untrue information. This will be my 3rd Flathead build, and I've done so much reading and research over the years, NOT from some Dude on Youu Tube or a website such as the Ford Barn. No, I'm not saying there's not useful information on here, I'm saying there's some people out there that , shall I say, don't know what they are talking about. , and thereare other real engine builders, who have done Flathead builds over and over, with real world results. I don't just throw information put there based on what some guy that knows a guy, that knew a guy..... and the 307 , 69 Nova was supposed to be a joke.I've met enough of them. I have Time Slips for the cars /motors I've built, not just hearsay. So......there you have it. I bet Ol' Pete has some ocean front property in Arizona too.....
 
As the original post-er of this thread, I too respect Pete's info and knowledge. Pretty sure he has built more than 3 flatheads.
 
Tim Ayers said:
Not sure you could even make the comparison between a SBF and a normally aspirated flathead. Two different animals.
Click to expand...
High Tim,
Please take another look at what I said.


I said that a N/A SBF can put out more than a supercharged flathead.

I learned ibefore the end of HS (1962) that the flathead wasn't competitive, with OHV V8's.
 
Last edited:
Ldjr003 said:
Sorry my messages are being put in the wrong place. I was responding to someone on here who goes by Pete, andI was calling him out about his ridiculous comments about his 14 to 1 compression Flathead making 352 c.i. There is a whole new generation out there getting into Flatheads, and I hate to see them getting useless and untrue information. This will be my 3rd Flathead build, and I've done so much reading and research over the years, NOT from some Dude on Youu Tube or a website such as the Ford Barn. No, I'm not saying there's not useful information on here, I'm saying there's some people out there that , shall I say, don't know what they are talking about. , and thereare other real engine builders, who have done Flathead builds over and over, with real world results. I don't just throw information put there based on what some guy that knows a guy, that knew a guy..... and the 307 , 69 Nova was supposed to be a joke.I've met enough of them. I have Time Slips for the cars /motors I've built, not just hearsay. So......there you have it. I bet Ol' Pete has some ocean front property in Arizona too.....
Click to expand...
Mabe the engine started out as a 337 c.i. ? I ran some 337s back in the early 70s they are heavy but can be strong runners for sure.
 
ack in the dat, C&T automotive sold stroker kits for allot of engines for the flatheads there were two that were very popular 3/8 x 3/8 296ci and 3/8 x 5/16 284 ci. The cost was $195 I also ran a "Y" block 342?? not sure , but close. Never had any problems with any of them. They all came complete. Rings anrods and bearings. The "Y" block had converted the rods to full floaters. Interesting projects, learning by my mistakes.
 
frnkeore said:
High Tim,
Please take another look at what I said.


I said that a N/A SBF can put out more than a supercharged flathead.

I learned ibefore the end of HS (1962) that the flathead wasn't competitive, with OHV V8's.
Click to expand...

Ah, my error then. Sorry about that.
 
Lanny said:
Ldjr003, suppose I tell you there is a fellow here in MN. that has
built a few Ford Flatheads too, His name is Rick Schnell, and he
built a Ford Flathead dragster that has dynoed at 939hp on 60%
60% Nitromethane fuel. It has the world record of being the quickest
single engine flathead dragster in the world.
Here is a link to a test run he made at BIR, Brainerd, MN. Raceway.

http://myflatheadford.com/worlds-quickest-single-engine-flathead-dragster/



.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing about that Nitro burning Flathead. Awesome machine. I' m just disagreeing with Mr. Pete.
 
tubman said:
With all of this talk about getting more air (oxygen) into these engines, I have to wonder why Nitrous Oxide is not more popular.:confused:
Click to expand...


This reminds me of a quote in a magazine many years ago: With nitrous oxide you have a tendency to drive over your own crankshaft!
 
Fordestes said:
Mabe the engine started out as a 337 c.i. ? I ran some 337s back in the early 70s they are heavy but can be strong runners for sure.
Click to expand...
You take a 59AB block and bore it out to the water jackets then sleeve it and bore it to 3,5". Use a 4.5 crank and see how many ci you come up with. back in the day we did not have all the modern technology and material but we still did things.
 
You take a 59AB block and bore it out to the water jackets then sleeve it and bore it to 3,5". Use a 4.5 crank and see how many ci you come up with. back in the day we did not have all the modern technology and material but we still did things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top